دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مطالعه زمانبندی هوش هیجانی و حقوق و دستمزد - نشریه الزویر

ABSTRACT

Despite strong claims for the importance of emotional intelligence (EI) in the workplace, few studies have empirically examined the influence of emotional intelligence on career success. Theoretically, emotional intelligence should help employees to develop stronger interpersonal relationships and leadership skills, leading to higher financial compensation. To test this proposed relationship, we examine whether an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence in 126 college students predicts their salaries 10 to 12 years post workforce entry, controlling for personality, general mental ability, gender, and college GPA. We find that emotional intelligence has a significant, positive effect on subsequent salary levels, and that this effect is: 1) mediated by having a mentor and 2) stronger at higher organizational levels than at lower levels. Our results suggest that emotional intelligence helps individuals to acquire the social capital needed to be successful in their careers. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

9.4. Limitations and conclusion

All data in this study were self-reported, increasing the potential for common-method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, we expect that common method variance did not significantly influence our findings for several reasons. The independent and dependent variables were gathered at two different points in time, more than a decade apart. In addition, many of the study's constructs were demographic (e.g., gender) or biographical (e.g., existence of a mentoring relationship, organizational position), as opposed to perceptual in nature. Moreover, the MSCEIT is an ability-based test with correct answers, making it difficult to provide false or socially desirable answers.

While our response rate aligned with norms in social science research, our sample size was relatively small and homogeneous. We had adequate numbers to test our hypotheses, but our analyses were limited in the number and types of controls we could include and the types of analyses we could perform. Our respondents were primarily Caucasian, which precluded analyzing the effects of race and ethnicity, and almost all were undergraduate business majors, which narrowed the range of potential career choices. Moreover, our sample contained a higher percentage of males (66.7% versus 53.9%) compared to the gender composition of the Time 1 sample and tended to have slightly higher undergraduate GPAs (higher means and reduced variance). These attrition effects were relatively small in magnitude and consistent with both: 1) prior research showing that subjects higher in mental abilities are more likely to remain in longitudinal studies (Baltes et al., 1971; Goodman & Blum, 1996) and 2) demographic trends regarding women's participation in the workforce (Lu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, additional and larger longitudinal data sets that track the evolution of career paths over time are necessary, both to establish the generalizability of our results to other populations (e.g., other majors, non-college graduates) and to provide more nuanced analyses (e.g., effects of demographic variables and other individual differences).